Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint:true and readOnlyHint:false, so the mutating nature is covered. The description adds 'Mutating.' which is redundant. It does not disclose side effects, reversibility, or failure conditions, but given annotation coverage, the description is adequate but not enriched.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose in the first sentence and uses the second to reinforce the mutating nature. Every word earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given this is a destructive, mutating operation with no output schema, the description is too sparse. It doesn't mention whether the match must be in a specific state, whether stopping is reversible, or what consequences occur (e.g., terminating sessions, invalidating data). An agent lacks essential context for safe invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all parameters (id, match_id, workspace_id) are already documented with formats and purpose. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Marks the match ended') and the resource (match). It distinguishes from siblings like match_create and match_get, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives. The verb 'marks' is specific enough for an agent to understand the intent.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like match_create or server_stop. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., match must be active) or conditions where it should not be used. The description provides no context for selection.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.